Citation network
Stanley Vs. Georgia
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Apr 07, 1969
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
- Relied / Followed
-
U.S. 557 (1969) U.S. Supreme Court Stanley v. GeorgiaSearch
-
U.S. 557 (1969) Stanley v. GeorgiaSearch
-
statute is unconstitutional insofar as it punishes mere private possession of obscene matter. Georgia, relying on Roth v. UnitedSearch
-
possession on the ground that it is a necessary incident to a statutory scheme prohibiting distribution, see Smith v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Page 394 U. S. 559 was tried before a jury and convicted. The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed. Stanley v. StateSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Roth v. UnitedSearch
-
the States are free, subject to the limits of other provisions of the Constitution, see, e.g., Ginsberg v. NewSearch
-
by the First Amendment. That statement has been repeated in various forms in subsequent cases. See, e.g., Smith v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Ginsberg v. NewSearch
-
The defendant in a companion case, Alberts v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Martin v. CitySearch
-
Griswold v. ConnecticutSearch
-
Lamont v. PostmasterSearch
-
Pierce v. SocietySearch
-
U. S. 510 (1925). This right to receive information and ideas, regardless of their social worth, see Winters v. NewSearch
-
Olmstead v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 277 U. S. 438 , 277 U. S. 478 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting). See Griswold v. ConnecticutSearch
-
NAACP v. AlabamaSearch
-
inconsistent with the philosophy of the First Amendment. As the Court said in Kingsley International Pictures Corp. v. RegentsSearch
-
Cf. Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. WilsonSearch
-
mere entertainment is much too elusive for this Court to draw, if indeed such a line can be drawn at all. See Winters v. NewSearch
-
For example, there is always the danger that obscene material might fall into the hands of children, see Ginsberg v. NewSearch
-
See Redrup v. NewSearch
-
restriction may not be justified by the need to ease the administration of otherwise valid criminal laws. See Smith v. CaliforniaSearch
-
of this opinion, we assume that they are obscene under any of the tests advanced by members of this Court. See Redrup v. NewSearch
-
The issue was before the Court in Mapp v. OhioSearch
-
Hoke v. UnitedSearch
-
Chaplinsky v. NewSearch
-
Hannegan v. EsquireSearch
-
Winters v. NewSearch
-
prosecutions for sale or distribution of obscene materials or possession with intent to sell or distribute. See Redrup v. NewSearch
-
Mishkin v. NewSearch
-
Ginzburg v. UnitedSearch
-
Smith v. CaliforniaSearch
-
S. 147 (1959). Our most recent decision involved a prosecution for sale of obscene material to children. Ginsberg v. NewSearch
-
Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. CitySearch
-
preventing the distribution or mailing of obscene material, or procedures for pre-distribution approval. See Freedman v. MarylandSearch
-
Marcus v. SearchSearch
-
A Quantity of Books v. KansasSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Stanley v. GeorgiaSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial